Shermer wrote the foreword to Protheros book, calling it the best book ever written on the subject. In fact, Dons visual presentation of the fossil and genetic evidence for evolution is so unmistakably powerful that I venture to say that no one could read this book and still deny the reality of evolution.

Of course, evolution can mean many things, most of which nobody would deny even without Protheros book. For example, evolution can mean simply change over time, or minor changes in existing species (microevolution), neither of which any sane person doubts. Both Shermer and Prothero, however, make it clear that by evolution they mean Darwins theory that all living things are descended from a common ancestor, modified principally by natural selection acting on unguided variations (macroevolution).

The modern version of the theory asserts that new variations originate in genetic mutations. Some of the most dramatic mutations occur in Hox genes, which can determine which appendages develop in various parts of the body. On page 101 of his book, Prothero shows pictures of two Hox gene mutations: antennapedia, which causes a fruit fly to sprout legs instead of antennae from its head, and ultrabithorax, which causes a fruit fly to develop a second pair of wings from it midsection. But both of these are harmful: A fruit fly with legs sticking out of its head is at an obvious disadvantage, and a four-winged fruit fly has no flight muscles in its extra pair of wings, so it has trouble flying and mating. Both mutants can survive only in the laboratory; in the wild they would quickly be eliminated by natural selection.

Some Darwinists have suggested that ancestral four-winged fruit flies could have evolved by mutation into modern two-winged fruit flies. But this explanation doesnt work, because a two-winged fly hasnt simply lost a pair of wings; it has acquired a large and complex gene (ultrabithorax) that enables it to develop halteres, or balancers. The halteres are located behind the flys normal pair of wings and vibrate rapidly to stabilize the insect in flight. So the two-winged fly represents the gainnot lossof an important structure. (See Chapter 9 of my book Icons of Evolution).

Prothero ignores the evidence and suggests that ancestral four-winged flies simply mutated into modern two-winged flies. Modern four-winged mutants, he writes on page 101, have apparently changed their regulatory genes so that ancestral wings appeared instead of halteres.

Not only does Prothero ignore the evidence from developmental genetics, but he also invents an imaginary animal to complete the story he wants us to believe. Page 195 of his book carries an illustration of an eighteen-winged dragonfly next to a normal four-winged dragonfly, with the following caption: The evolutionary mechanism by which Hox genes allow arthropods to make drastic changes in their number and arrangement of segments and appendages, producing macroevolutionary changes with a few simple mutations.

Yet there is no evidence that eighteen-winged dragonflies ever existed. There are lots of dragonflies in the fossil record, but none of them remotely resemble this fictitious creature.

No matter. In what Michael Shermer calls the best book ever written on the subject, Donald Prothero simply makes up whatever evidence he wants.

For the record, this post is being posted in News/Activism by the express permission of Jim Robinson, founder and owner of Free Republic:

Debate on church doctrine and or threads on specific religious matters may be best posted in the religion forum, but the defense of religious freedom, especially against those who wish to deprive us of same belongs front and center on FR...They banned God and prayer and creationism from public schools and public places, but Ill be damned if theyre gonna ban Him or it from FR!

I couldn’t agree more! Although, seeing what the “theory” of evolution has done to society, I would argue that the Darwin’s evo-atheist fairytale has done (and will continue to do) far more damage to civilization.

You can prove evolution is a lie in one sentence. I won’t stick to just one sentence, but you could if you weren’t given to talking too much.

It is a random process, right? Mutations and selective breeding over countless years.

So where are all of evolution’s failures(that’s the one sentence, btw)? Show me the fossil of just one “impossible creature.” There should be an entire branch of science dedicated to them. For every random success...there should be a billion, a trillion, a gajillion failures.

You nailed it. The fossil record is still the biggest enemy of the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Add to that the incredible, evolution-defying discoveries we are making molecular and cell biology, and it is no wonder that so many evos are abandoning the HMS Beagle in search of a new God-denying evolutionary ship!

What evidence do you have that “dinosaurs” weren’t evolutionarily viable?

What made them “impossible creatures?” Was there a dinosaur with a brick for wings, instead of an airfoil? Amazing that “evolution” could accidentally get the laws of aerodynamics correct. Wonder where all the fossils are from animals that had shapes that weren’t airworthy? Must have been literally billions of them before it “accidentally” got it right.

Was there a dinosaur who eschewed traditional bony armor (which is itself quite a concept...how did “evolution” discover that armor was...well...armor?) in favor of bacon? How about the dinosaur evolution evolved into an efficient breeder/feeder that used its own testicles for baiting other carnivores(the females went hungry)?

Your same evolutionist scientists claim the dinosaurs died out to a major catastrophic event...as you well know. Now they’re claiming that dinosaurs became birds. So even your cult leaders don’t claim that dinosaurs weren’t viable.

In other words, you don’t know jack s**t. But you have seen a little on TV.

And speaking of the scientists who fabricated the phony global warming scare, last I checked they also happen to be fanatical evos who have made “mother earth” their god, and charlie darwin its messenger.

They have been making stuff up for a long time...far longer than the global warming alarmists and the AIDS alarmists combined. Unfortunately, it’s hard for the average person to go beyond authority, think for themselves, and realize that the evos have been actively duping them for the last 150 years.

I’d love to have an 18 winged dragonfly for a pet. Maybe someday they’ll discover an artist’s conception of one sealed in tree sap, and using that and the magic that is evolution we can all wish hard enough and it will pop back into existence. Just like every other amazing creature on Earth did.

You would be interested in considering actually commenting on the article instead of starting off on a personal attack on GGG, would you?

Like, what do you think about the guy making up stuff like 18 winged dragonflies to posit his theory?

Or why evos would suggest the existence of a four winged fruit fly as an ancestor to the two winged one with nothing to support it? And why, if the two winged one works so well, the four winged one evolved in the first place?

24
posted on 12/01/2009 7:22:55 PM PST
by metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)

Ah, the much respected “Joe’s Gems” repository. If you need a gem, think Joe’s Gems. Apparently when Joe isn’t busy creating his website for his gem store, he is reviewing dinosaur books.

What exactly do a bunch of book reviews have to do with anything?

You know what I think? I think you googled “help i ned to no if teh dinosours ate well” and that is what came up...and since it looked like an imposing bunch of information, you tried to just throw it out there without actually even understanding what it was.

So once again...what do a bunch of book reviews have to do with anything?

For all the years the term has been used as an abbreviation for EVOlutionist, as you well know, all of a sudden, evos are taking exception to the term and acting like they’ve gone brain dead and don’t know what it means and that it’s an insult instead of a descriptive term.

So, as I’ve asked before and not received an answer, exactly what is it that supporters of evolution would prefer to be called?

A split second after launching itself from a tree, a tiny dromaeosaur named Microraptor gui begins spreading its feathered limbs. Whether or not it is an evolutionary "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds, one thing is fairly certain: it could glide through the air like a flying squirrel.

Whether or not? Fairly certain?

A painting? Is this the best we can expect in support of the ToE?

And we should accept the ToE as a fact for what reason?

47
posted on 12/01/2009 8:10:47 PM PST
by metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)

"Crick and Orgel wrote in their book 'Life Itself,' "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

Crick is one of my scientific heroes. Now I have lots of new leads to pursue, find I'm not alone, and other scientists question it as well, but some of this work may turn out to be outdated.

First I'll have to figure out who came up with that quote, got it from an evolution vs. creationism debate on youtube.

Some FReepers act like you're ignorant if you don't accept evolution unquestioningly which seems to be the dominating thought out there.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.